Order That Police Wear Cameras Stirs Unexpected Reactions

By MARC SANTORA

August 13, 2013

In more than a decade in office, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has often championed the use of cutting-edge technology to help solve age-old problems in New York.

And when it comes to law enforcement, the mayor and his police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, have steadfastly supported the increasing use of video surveillance as one of the more effective means to combat crime.

But when Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled on Monday that the city’s stop-and-frisk program was unconstitutional and ordered that police officers in certain precincts strap tiny cameras to their uniforms to record their dealings with the public, Mr. Bloomberg’s response was immediate and emphatic.

“It would be a nightmare,” he said. “We can’t have your cameraman follow you around and film things without people questioning whether they deliberately chose an angle, whether they got the whole picture in.”

In her ruling, Judge Scheindlin ordered that the department set up a one-year pilot program that would compel officers to wear cameras in the precincts where the most police stops were being performed: Mott Haven in the Bronx, East Harlem in Manhattan, Jamaica and Hollis in Queens, East New York in Brooklyn and the North Shore of Staten Island.

The cameras would provide various benefits, Judge Scheindlin wrote, including providing “a contemporaneous, objective record of stop-and-frisks” that might “either confirm or refute the belief of some minorities that they may have been stopped simply as a result of their race, or based on the clothes they wore, such as baggy pants or a hoodie.”

If parties know they are being recorded, she wrote, more “respectful” interactions will also be encouraged.

There is little comprehensive data about the impact of “body-worn cameras,” as they are known in the industry.

Judge Scheindlin cites the experience of a small police department in Rialto, Calif. In the first 12 months of a pilot program there, with half of the department’s 54 uniformed patrol officers wearing cameras, complaints against the police dropped 88 percent compared with the previous 12 months.

Other departments around the country have been experimenting with body-worn cameras, but their experiences have yet to be systematically studied.

A video camera worn by a police officer in Oakland, Calif.

Jeff Chiu / Associated Press

There are several types of cameras available — some mounted on the vest, others worn as headgear — and the cost can vary from a few hundred dollars to around $1,000 per camera, depending on the model. The entry of New York City into the marketplace would quite likely spur innovation and competition.

The New York Civil Liberties Union, which has been among the most outspoken critics of the Police Department’s increasing use of surveillance technology, supported video surveillance in this instance.

“The pilot project on cameras is a wonderful idea,” said Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the organization.

“We have always said that cameras are a double-edged sword — they would present a lot of potential for good and a lot of potential for privacy invasions,” Ms. Lieberman said. “But when you’re interacting with the Police Department, there is so much ‘he said, she said.’ The power imbalance is enormous.”

While a mechanism would have to be created to destroy video that had nothing to do with a criminal case, she said that over all, having officers wear cameras is a “win-win.”